: ''One issue was mentioned at end of meeting, where Tycho? signing plugin? (something) changed that broke ability to sign and produce packed jars. [Apologies, not sure who was speaking]. But they said they'd have to research more to figure out what the issue what (they'd just returned from vacation) ... if issue was that "builder suddenly changed on them" (and they don't know how to specify a particular one) or if "no one is responsible for overall framework" (or, something like that, I'm sure I'm misquoting). If this is about {{bug|387557}} then yes, jar processor should be fixed, but seems like possibly could be worked around? But, member said they'd have to look into it more and get back to us once they'd "caught up" from being out.''

== Kepler ==

== Kepler ==

Line 146:

Line 149:

-->

-->

−

== Continue and conclude annual debrief ==

+

=== Continue and conclude annual debrief ===

* [[Planning_Council/Juno_retrospective]]

* [[Planning_Council/Juno_retrospective]]

Line 152:

Line 155:

: Feel free to add things to the page before the meeting, if that would facilitate discussion.

: Feel free to add things to the page before the meeting, if that would facilitate discussion.

−

: ''Some good points raised. We will re-visit in September.''

+

: ''Mostly discussed "runtime projects" as has been being discussed on Rt PMC list. I noted a few things in [[Planning_Council/Juno_retrospective]] but was thought to be an on-going discussion.''

: Be sure to read last years: [[Planning_Council/Indigo_retrospective]]

: Be sure to read last years: [[Planning_Council/Indigo_retrospective]]

−

== Begin Kepler Requirements Planning ==

+

=== Begin Kepler Requirements Planning ===

* [[SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements]]

* [[SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements]]

: Begin discussion of requirements, if changes needed. To the extent possible, I suggest we start with high level issues this month (such as, should any be added, removed?) and perhaps finish up with wording changes for clarification (if any) next month.

: Begin discussion of requirements, if changes needed. To the extent possible, I suggest we start with high level issues this month (such as, should any be added, removed?) and perhaps finish up with wording changes for clarification (if any) next month.

+

+

:''Didn't discuss much. I brought up issue of low compliance to "greediness" issue, and as far as I know, to define everything in features is the only way for adopters to provide patches ... so ... either I need education, or better educate others on why important? Or ... maybe others don't need patches? What's alternative? New release? (which, adopters can not do "on their own", typically, such as for a "hot fix" for one customer). ''

== Other Business ==

== Other Business ==

* What's status of new "Portal Interface"? (Wayne?). Is it (nearly) ready to use for "Simultaneous Release data"? For example, links to ramp down plan, accessibility support, reports? Etc.

* What's status of new "Portal Interface"? (Wayne?). Is it (nearly) ready to use for "Simultaneous Release data"? For example, links to ramp down plan, accessibility support, reports? Etc.

+

+

: ''Wayne said "release 1" is tentatively expected end of this month. This would replace most (basic) functionality of current portal ... enhancements would be added from there. To add "Simultaneous Release tracking" (e.g. URLs for rampdown plans, accessibility, etc.), would be considered, but "low on the list". Mostly focused on integrating plans/releases so they are all easier, whether yearly train or not, if I understood sentiment.''

: ''No one seemed to think it that hard the way it was, and was useful to show "people still involved". Granted, more could be done with automation, but seemed lower on priority than other things. Concluded with asking PC members to comment on {{bug|365738}} if they had opinions or improvements.''

Note: "Inactive" refers to Strategic Members or PMCs we have not heard from for a while, and have been unable to convince to participate. Those members can become active again at any time. Contact David Williams if questions.

Announcements

Juno SR1

One issue was mentioned at end of meeting, where Tycho? signing plugin? (something) changed that broke ability to sign and produce packed jars. [Apologies, not sure who was speaking]. But they said they'd have to research more to figure out what the issue what (they'd just returned from vacation) ... if issue was that "builder suddenly changed on them" (and they don't know how to specify a particular one) or if "no one is responsible for overall framework" (or, something like that, I'm sure I'm misquoting). If this is about bug 387557 then yes, jar processor should be fixed, but seems like possibly could be worked around? But, member said they'd have to look into it more and get back to us once they'd "caught up" from being out.

Begin Kepler Requirements Planning

Begin discussion of requirements, if changes needed. To the extent possible, I suggest we start with high level issues this month (such as, should any be added, removed?) and perhaps finish up with wording changes for clarification (if any) next month.

Didn't discuss much. I brought up issue of low compliance to "greediness" issue, and as far as I know, to define everything in features is the only way for adopters to provide patches ... so ... either I need education, or better educate others on why important? Or ... maybe others don't need patches? What's alternative? New release? (which, adopters can not do "on their own", typically, such as for a "hot fix" for one customer).

Other Business

What's status of new "Portal Interface"? (Wayne?). Is it (nearly) ready to use for "Simultaneous Release data"? For example, links to ramp down plan, accessibility support, reports? Etc.

Wayne said "release 1" is tentatively expected end of this month. This would replace most (basic) functionality of current portal ... enhancements would be added from there. To add "Simultaneous Release tracking" (e.g. URLs for rampdown plans, accessibility, etc.), would be considered, but "low on the list". Mostly focused on integrating plans/releases so they are all easier, whether yearly train or not, if I understood sentiment.

No one seemed to think it that hard the way it was, and was useful to show "people still involved". Granted, more could be done with automation, but seemed lower on priority than other things. Concluded with asking PC members to comment on bug 365738 if they had opinions or improvements.